Stonewater Limited (202214785)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214785

Stonewater Limited

22 March 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of the kitchen replacement works following a leak into the property;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. The resident reported an uncontainable leak entering his property from the flat above in October 2021. He explained that the leak was constant and poured into his kitchen and living room which caused damage to his property including his electric fittings. The landlord attended that same day but was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property. It is evident that access was subsequently obtained; however, it is unclear when works were carried out or when the leak was contained.
  3. In November 2021, the landlord assessed the damaged caused and reported that the resident’s electric fittings, including the cooker, hob, and hood were faulty. It also determined that there was wear and tear and new flooring was needed in his property. There was then no further correspondence between the landlord and the resident until January 2022.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint in January 2022, as he was dissatisfied that the landlord had not rectified the damage caused. He advised that water had leaked heavily into his property for over a week which caused damage to his ceiling, kitchen walls, cooker, living room walls, and carpet. He noted that the landlord had attended his home on three occasions but that nothing had been done.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord accepted responsibility for the damage caused to his property. It explained that there were issues gaining access to the flat above which caused delays in rectifying the leak in his property. The landlord recognised that it had made little progress since the damage was caused in October 2021. It confirmed that the resident’s property had been added to its kitchen renewal programme, and that works were due to commence in the first half of 2022. It apologised and offered £150 compensation for the delays in rectifying the issue and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  6. The resident raised further concerns in October 2022 and advised that it had been over ten months since the landlord had agreed to fit a new kitchen and cooker to rectify the damage, but that nothing had been done. He was also unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication. The resident explained that he had to use a microwave for cooking and had spent more money on microwave meals as a result of the delays.
  7. Internal emails showed that the kitchen was surveyed in late October 2022, and colour choices for the kitchen was confirmed with the resident.
  8. The landlord later stated that it had aimed to complete the kitchen repair within the first six months of 2022, but that it was overlooked. As a resolution, it offered the resident an additional £75 for the delay in starting the kitchen replacement works and for the inconvenience caused. As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord advised that it would also provide a hob and oven as part of the kitchen works, instead of the usual standing cooker. It also confirmed that it would arrange to fully clean the carpets and rectify any water damage to his walls. The landlord advised that its contractor would discuss with the resident and agree a start date for works.
  9. The resident brought his complaint to this service in November 2022 as he was dissatisfied that the replacement kitchen works had not begun. He was also unhappy that dates were not provided for the commencement of works. As a resolution he requested dates and plans for all works including the installation of the kitchen, hob and oven, cleaning of carpets, and rectifying the damage to his walls (Internal emails showed that the replacement kitchen was installed within 15 working days in December 2022).
  10. Thereafter in January 2023, the landlord revised its compensation offer and included £180 for carpet reimbursement. The landlord apologised for the poor service provided, and advised that it would implement preventative measures to ensure delays did not reoccur in the future. It also apologised and offered £250 for the length of time taken to escalate the resident’s stage two complaint response (this was after the landlord’s final complaint response; however, it will be considered as it pertains to the case).

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs guidance states that the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repairs of the structure and exterior of the property, including fittings fixtures kitchen units, walls and floors.
  2. Its repair guidance states that repairs are prioritised depending on the seriousness of the defect, potential damage to the property and the impact it would have on the household.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that planned improvement work such as installing new kitchens, would be considered under its planned maintenance programme. The guidance states that its contractor will contact residents to provide details about the planned improvement works including appointment dates and length of time to complete works.

Leak

  1. When a landlord accepts responsibility to carry out kitchen replacement works due to damage caused by a leak into the resident’s property, it would be obligated to liaise with its contractors to survey, plan,and carry out works within areasonable timeframe agreed with residents. Clear and accurate communication with residents is also important in relation to when the works are to begin, the duration of the works, and what the works entail. This is because planned works can often mean a longer duration to commence works within the landlord’s planned maintenance programme.
  2. As per the landlord’s repairs guidance, it was responsible for maintenance and repairs of the structure and exterior of the property including fittings, fixtures kitchen units, walls, floors, and the ceiling. Following the resident’s initial reports in October 2021, the landlord appropriately attempted to investigate the leak on the same day as the reports. This was in line with its policies and repair responsibilities. It was beyond the landlord’s control that it was unable to gain access to the property that day, and so it was appropriate that it continued to attempt to gain access until it was successful, at which point, it completed the repairs. Given, however, that the resident was unaware of this sequence of events, it would have been helpful had the landlord kept the resident informed of its actions in a timely manner, which it did not do.
  3. Following the repair to the leak, the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property within a reasonable timeframe. Having assessed the damage and necessary rectification works, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide the resident with either a fixed or indicative timeframe for the repairs and to make the necessary arrangements. This did not happen, leading to an extended period where the resident was left unsure how the works would proceed. This would have caused frustration for the resident and led to him having to expend unnecessary time and trouble pursuing a complaint.
  4. In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its service had fallen short of its standards and that there had been delays to the rectification works. It was also appropriate that it recognised the impact of its delayed and made an offer of compensation (discussed further below).
  5. In this case, the landlord advised that the kitchen would be included in a planned programme of works. The Ombudsman notes that where major works are not urgent, it can be reasonable for the landlord to include them in a programme of planned works. Planned works can be difficult to complete, sometimes require multiple visits, or require specialist services or supplies that are not always readily available. These factors are often outside a landlord’s control, and therefore have a clear impact on the time needed to complete the works. In such cases a landlord would reasonably be expected to show evidence of actively working towards a resolution, managing a tenant’s expectations, and providing meaningful updates. It is not evident, however, what investigation it carried out to determine whether the resident required a more urgent response. Given that the resident was left with only the use of the microwave to cook with, and that the landlord was aware his cooker and oven had been damaged, the landlord’s failure to consider this or provide an interim solution contributed to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  6. Regardless of whether or not it was reasonable to replace the kitchen as part of a programmed of planned works, the landlord failed to follow up on this promise within the timeframe it specified. In this case, the planned works did not appear to be a complicated one or require specialist services or parts. The primary reason for the delay appeared that the landlord had overlooked the resident’s kitchen replacement. Having raised the resident’s expectations that it would take action, its subsequent failure to have any further follow up communication would have been very distressing for the resident. The landlord only began to take positive steps to replace the kitchen after the resident escalated his complaint, demonstrating that the landlord had poor internal processes to monitor the progress of this repair.
  7. Furthermore, as noted above, the resident raised concerns about the damage to his living room carpets and kitchen walls. As per the landlord’s repair guidance, the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure of the property including the walls and floors in the property. Therefore, it was fair that the landlord accepted responsibility for the damage caused, and agreed to fully clean the carpets and rectify any water damage to his walls in its complaint response dated 1 November 2022. However, there was a lack of communication, in specific the dates in which works to clean the carpets and rectify the damage were set to begin, which led to the resident having to chase for an update and having an unnecessary involvement in the complaint.
  8. The resident raised concern with this Service in November 2022, about the landlord’s lack of dates provided around the cleaning of his carpets and rectifying damage to his walls. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations by setting clear timeframes for when the works were set to begin and advising if there were delays, rather than the resident having to chase the landlord. Although the landlord attempted to rectify this by offering compensation towards the replacement of the carpets, this response was not provided until 26 January 2023 which was (two months) after its final complaint response. The landlord failed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations by keeping him informed around the dates and plans for completion of works to his carpets and walls. This led to uncertainty and the resident having to chase for an update with this service, and having an unnecessary involvement in the complaint.
  9. The above failures amount to maladministration in the circumstances. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has made offers of compensation in relation to these delays, being £150 for the initial delays, and £75 for the further delays. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord also used its discretion to offer an improved cooker/oven, and also to carry out carpet cleaning, for which it offered a further £180 compensation towards. Additionally, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord began works to repair the kitchen in December 2022, which ultimately resolved the substantive issue of the complaint.
  10. In summary, the landlord appropriately acknowledged where its service fell short, and made some attempts to rectify this with its offers of compensation. However, the amount offered by way of compensation falls short of reflecting the impact the delays and lack of communication had on the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the resident’s current rent is £140 a week. Having initially raised the resident’s expectations of repairs to his kitchen in November 2021, a total of 52 weeks elapsed prior to it taking action in December 2022, during which time, the resident was without the utility of a working kitchen. Based on the loss of utility of kitchen, and the associated impact of the landlord’s lack of communication throughout this period, compensation amounting to 25% of the resident’s rent for this period is ordered, being £1,820. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer which totalled £405.
  11. It is not disputed that the landlord rectified the damage caused to the resident’s walls, as confirmed in its internal emails dated 17 January 2023. However, this service was not provided with any records of specific dates or actions carried out to rectify the damage to the walls. Although the Ombudsman was still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for repairs, which provides details of specifically the works were carried out and the specific date in which such works were carried out, what the agreed next steps and expectations were.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two stage complaint procedure. The policy states that the landlord will acknowledge the resident’s complaint within two working days of receipt. It states that at stage one it aims to respond within ten working days. The policy states that its stage two complaint response should also be provided within ten working days of the resident escalating their complaint. The complaints policy further states that if the landlord is unable to respond within the advised timeframe of ten working days that it will notify the resident of the timeframe for a response. It states that if an extension beyond 20 working days is required, it will arrange with the resident.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 January 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 February 2022 and advised it would respond by 22 February 2022. The landlord later extended the time for its response to 7 March 2022. This was appropriate as in line with its complaint policy, if an extension beyond 20 working days is required, it will arrange with the resident.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 7 March 2022 which was in line with its new advised complaint response. The resident escalated his complaint on 11 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 October 2022, which was five days outside its escalation procedure. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 1 November 2022 which was within  its complaint procedure.
  4. In a later complaint response from the landlord on 30 January 2023, it apologised and offered £250 for the length of time taken to escalate the resident’s stage two complaint response. The landlord explained that it had implemented a process to ensure the receipt of escalation requests even if member of its staff were away. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise and apologise for its failings, and to implement a process to avoid delayed escalations moving forward. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer £250 compensation for its recognised failing. The compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which suggests offers between £100-£600 where there was failure which adversely affected the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling code details the maximum timescale for responses. It states that the stage two complaint response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate, and if this is not possible an explanation and a date of when the stage two response will be received should be provided. The Complaint Handling Code further states that the response should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. It is therefore recommended that the landlord review its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.This should also be done within 28 days of the date of this letter, and a copy should be sent to the Ombudsman for our records.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the kitchen replacement works following a leak into the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its complaints handling prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,820 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays and poor communication in relation to the kitchen repairs.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £405. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to:
    1. reiterate its offer of £250 in relation to its poor complaints handling, if this is yet to be accepted;
    2. conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for repairs, which provides details of specifically the works were carried out and the specific date in which such works were carried out, what the agreed next steps and expectations were;
    3. conduct a review of its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.